UPPER POTTSGROVE-Board of Commissioners meeting, Monday August 19, 2024. The Board met in the basement of the old firehouse located along Farmington Ave Monday evening. The basement has served as the home of the Township’s administrative staff for many years as well as the meeting place for the Board and supporting committees. The last several years have seen a continuous increase in maintenance costs of this building including mold, water, and roof issues.
At the beginning at each meeting, the Township solicitor reviews the conduct rules for public comments. These rules cover time limits (for example, Upper Pottsgrove currently allows three minutes for public comments whereas the Pottsgrove School District allows two) as well as recognition procedures and decorum. Monday night was no exception and the solicitor reviewed the standards in detail.
The Board moved into its general routine and approved the minutes of the previous meeting (July 15, 2024) and the bill list. The bill list consists of payments the Township must remit for the month. The Board had previously authorized all items on the bill list by majority vote (by votes on the budget or separate actions); a vote concerning any bill list is to simply appropriate the actual dollars. Mechanical problems such as wrong vender, wrong amount, are generally identified before the Board meeting.
This evening, however, two commissioners, Cathy Paretti and Dave Waldt, voted against the bill list. Commissioners Hank Llewellyn, Don Read, and Trace Slinkerd voted in favor of the list; the amount was $214,519.42. The reason that Paretti and Waldt gave for their no votes was that they did not support the litigation authorized by the Board to defend the Township staff against false claims. Board President Trace Slinkerd explained that this was an appropriation (mechanics of payment) vote and that the Board had already authorized the litigation. For background on the staff support issue please see “Three Commissioners Defend Staff, Two Refuse” dated May 28th in this publication.
Commissioner Don Read requested a point of order from the Chair. He asserted that Kate Harper, the attorney representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Township over the municipal building site, and the plaintiff, Matt Murray, had ample time to correct the record and retract the misleading letter. This would have saved money for both parties. He pointed out that all the Township wanted was a correction of the widely circulated falsehood. He continued that this could have been done at no cost, but now the Township has no choice but to pursue an expensive legal action. He further emphasized that it is the commissioners’ responsibility to protect Township staff from deliberate false statements that damage reputations. He then asked the commissioners, “What other options do we have?”
After the bill list vote, Martin Schreiber, a former commissioner and without recognition, hollered out concerning the vote. The chair issued a warning; Schreiber shouted out once more. The chair issued a second warning. He then went quiet. A note here: Schreiber ran for reelection and was defeated in 2021. Some may recall that he voted for the Artisan development plan, a plan that is threating the building of over 400 houses in the Township. Currently, the Township is engaged in costly litigation to prevent overdevelopment because of this vote. Schreiber, to help understand the commissioner alignment, acted as a poll watcher for Paretti and Waldt during the municipal elections last year.
This opposition during the bill list vote was the second time Paretti and Waldt attempted to redebate an action that the Board had already authorized. At the July Board meeting, the Township solicitor repeatedly explained the mechanism to defend the staff to Paretti. Paretti continued to respond that she did not understand nor followed the logic; Waldt remained silent. The vote in July was the same as Monday’s, three to two.
After the acceptance of the minutes and bill list—usually a short period of time—the department heads and special staff report to the Board. These reports include Township Manager, Police Chief, Public Works Director, Solicitor, Engineer, and Tax Collector. The Open Space Chairman and the Fire Company President report as well.
The manager’s report reinforced the strong financial standing of the Township with a general fund balance (the primary Township account) of over 12 million. This number includes 9 million invested in short-term US Treasury Bills (T-Bills), a risk-free investment, earning over 5% interest.
Each representative made their respective reports and the commissioners asked questions as necessary. Until recently, the Tax Collector, Diane DeLong, did not respond when called on. The Tax Collector responded Monday indicating her report is in the commissioner’s packet. Back in September of 2022, the Tax Collector instructed the Board that she would not take questions from the Board at meetings. She will only answer questions submitted in writing or by email.
As for some background, the Township pays a portion of the Tax Collector salary (the other two payers are the school district and county) as well as provides an office (that it is not required to do), supplies, postage, printing and training. The majority of commissioners believe it is appropriate for the Tax Collector to answer their questions in public.
On a sad note, our Public Works Director, Chad Davis, will be leaving the Township. During his report, he took the time to thank the commissioners for the opportunity to serve as the director and for all their support. Chad has done a remarkable job serving the Township and developing his team. He will be greatly missed. But, on the good side, Chad will continue to support the Township in a part-time role particularly around snow storms and road projects. The Township wishes him well in his new endeavor as a business owner.
After the minutes, bill list, and standard reports, the Board moved to Old and New Business. Here is a summary of the actions taken Monday night:
The Board approved the advertisement for bids to construct the new municipal building on Evans Rd. The Board approved the building site in August of 2022. The vote was three to two: Read, Llewellyn, Slinkerd, yes; Waldt, Paretti, no.
The Board approved the purchase of what is currently called the “Stuart” property as well as an accompanying resolution to sub-divide the land. The vote was five to zero. This acquisition of 1.4 acres brings the total property the Township owns to nearly 340 acres and compliments the majority of the Board’s ongoing strategy of guarding against overdevelopment. Please see the article “Commissioners, Open Space & Recreation Committee, Purchase 9.25 Acres to Further Contest Overdevelopment” date June 24, 2024, in this publication.
Commissioner Read then requested permission from the chair to comment on the vote just taken and the one before it concerning bids. He pointed out the inconsistencies between the two votes. He noted that Commissioners Waldt and Paretti voted against putting the public building on the Township-owned property along Evans Rd out to bid yet voted for the Stuart property purchase and its planned use.
Read highlighted that the Township, with the vote just taken, approved the purchase of land using open space funds to add to another parcel, Hollenbach Park, a parcel that is currently being developed. He continued that on this newly acquired land, an eight-million-dollar complex, including buildings, parking lots, bathrooms, storage sheds, and likely a concession stand and other structures, will be constructed—funded by open space money and even some county funds. This is a long-term project that the Open Space Committee recommended and the Board approved.
Read stressed that while there seems to be consensus that reasonable development of Hollenbach Park and the newly purchased open space is both permissible and legal, there is opposition to reasonably developing another open space parcel owned by the Township. He reminded the commissioners that the Open Space Act includes provisions for “reasonable development,” a term that was intentionally included when the law was drafted.
At this point, Commissioner Paretti asked permission to comment as well. She stated that there are two categories of “open space”: passive and active and that the property concerning the municipal building is passive. Commissioner Read then countered that the terms “active” and “passive” are not in the Open Space Act nor, for that matter, is “permanently preserved.” “Permanently preserved” is a term that the group opposed to the municipal building, including Paretti and Waldt, have used repeatedly without definition or defining who grants this status.
Continuing with the meeting, the Board approved the renewal of the School Resource Officer Program with the Pottsgrove School District. Under the plan, the Township provides an officer to the middle school during the academic year and the district provides the funding. The vote was five to zero.
The Board appointed two individuals to the Townships Archery Program: Mr. Matt Hartzell and Mr. Mike Fallon as coordinator and deputy coordinator respectively. The Township has had an archery hunt program for several years. The vote was 5 to 0. As with all our volunteers, the Board appreciates Matt and Mike stepping forward and taking on this responsibility.
Developers from Rouse Chamberlin presented to the Board their concept for constructing homes near 115 W. Moyer Road. As briefed, the plan calls for nine units within 12.265 acres. The Board thanked them for their presentation.
The final action of the Board was to approve the advertising for bids of two projects in conjunction with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds. One project is concerned with improving stormwater management near Moyer and Evans Rd, the second, with improving Farmington Ave. ARPA funds are Federal dollars sent to the states and local government to assist in the response to the recent pandemic. The vote was five to zero.
The Board then went into public and commissioner comments. Five individuals made comments at the meeting. Four were regular commenters—folks who have been making comments long before any of the current commissioners were on the Board. Three comments were against the municipal building project made at the beginning of the Board meeting (the Board approved the project two years ago); the other was complimenting the outgoing public works director.
During commissioner comments, Commissioner Paretti commented on the suit to protect the Township staff (this was discussed above during the bill list vote as well) . She stated that as a commissioner she is allowed to see any document and questioned why she couldn’t see a document associated with the suit. When the manager and Board president asked her who said that she couldn’t see it, she stated “someone” at the table said she couldn’t see it. She didn’t state who.
Commissioner Read suggested that the Board consider closing the Township to solicitation. This is in reference to individuals or companies that go door-to-door uninvited selling services or products. The Township currently requires individuals to have a permit; this does not include religious or political groups.
The meeting closed and the Board went into executive session.